Toolemera Blog

PNG. Gesundheit.

PNG. Possibly Nutritional Granola, which somehow sticks in my head more than Portable Network Graphics does. Or possibly an offshoot of some radical political movement. If you really want to know more about PNG, read it's Wiki. I'm certainly not going to attempt to figure out all the meanings of the tech-talk comparing PNG to JPEG to GIF to TIFF. All I care about is how the file format works and what the end result is.

When I first tried out the PNG image format a few years back, it failed miserably in the creation of PDF files in Acrobat. For that matter, when attempting to work with it in Photoshop, my results never seemed to match what was in my head. Over the past year or two, Acrobat has come a long way in it's ability to handle PNG. It may or not be intentional, but there it is. Acrobat 9 does a good job of converting PNG into PDF files.

On the Photoshop Elements side of things, PE does a great job of adjusting levels, contrast and shadows in PNG. I simply scan to TIFF and batch convert in PE to PNG. I have Acrobat set to process PNG files as Monochrome lossless, Grayscale high quality and Color high quality. The output looks great and behaves nicely when various size reduction processes are tried. PNG files are processed into PDF files seamlessly and quickly. What more could I ask?

Don't get me wrong now. I still swear by TIFF as a master file. Not Jpeg 2000, whatever the pundits say. TIFF is still my primary imaging output format. The problem is, trying to get a PDF created from TIFF files down to a reasonable size is a pain. Both TIFF and PNG files are converted into Jpeg files when Acrobat creates a PDF. For whatever the technical reasons are, starting with a PNG file produces a smaller file from the getgo. The less size reduction actions I have to go through, the more the liklihood the end result will look like the beginning. Just smaller.

I am sure some imaging guru out there can explain the why's and wherefore's but honestly, it doesn't matter to me. What matters are the end results. 

Till next, Gary

Facsimile versus Googlimile

My apologies for a bad joke. I just can't resist poking fun at Google. Or Amazon. But not Amazon in this post. That comes in the next one. I'll be honest and say that most digital books, whether in PDF or other formats, leave me cold. Download most any book from Google and the pages look downright anemic. All that white background, high contrast text and washed out graphics leave me feeling as if I am reading a draft version of a document from a printer low on toner.

Perhaps it began with my exposure to digital imaging in an archives setting. Producing a master image that could stand in for the original in a pinch was the goal. Color was used if there was relevant color involved. If not, grayscale was the format of choice. Tears, creases, stains, etc. were preserved in the master image and often in the primary PDF file. Bit by bit, PDF documents took over as the medium of choice for the academic types. I'll say this, on a whole the academic types didn't care if the PDF was produced as a facsimile or a thoroughly white-washed version. What they wanted was the content. The experience was secondary or even useless to them.

I, of course, am heavily biased. I like books. Paper, print, smudges, notes, dog-ears and all that stuff. I also like the idea of preserving and distributing books in digital formats, even if those digital formats are as ephemeral as you can get. Now there's an oxymoron for you - Digital Ephemera. There is, perhaps, no document more ephemeral than a digital document. But I digress. Which is something I rarely do. Even if I do have a tendency to go off in tangents of one sort or another. Yet, I am still digressing. Back to the topic...

Here is an example of the same page, in facsimile and in whitewash. I don't know where I retrieved this image from, so if it I am breaking copyright, I apologize and fall back on Fair Use. The right hand image is what Google and in fact, most imaging services like to produce. The left hand image is the original, in full color. Background removal is practiced at it's most extreme. Specs, wrinkles, paper texture, dead bugs and all that good stuff is removed. Text is slightly improved in contrast and sharpness. But overall, it simply doesn't have any age to it. No feeling of history. No soul.

Why is the right hand image preferred by most imaging services and even most online document providers? There must be something sinfull about producing a PDF that actually looks like the original. My best guess is that there is a preference for a page that looks as if it was produced in MS Word. Sparkly clean and new. Oh well. The most unfortunate aspect of my bias is that to produce a facsimile of a book in a hard cover format, I'ld have to opt for full color printing. The book would cost an arm and two legs. Pity.

But in PDF, you can get away with color or really good grayscale. Which is, of course, my preference. That point made, I guess I choose to force my opinions upon the public. Even if the original has nice clean but slightly yellowed or browned paper, I think that is the best way to present it in a PDF. So what if the original, when printed, looked different. I like what I like and I feel that everyone else should also like what I like.

Actually, that is not true. When it comes to producing a good digital image, I want to be able to look at the image and feel as if I am looking at the real thing, not a piece of digital ephemera.

And so, to sleep. Till next, Gary

"If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber'd here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
if you pardon, we will mend:
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to 'scape the serpent's tongue,
We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call;
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends."

Good Web Design Stuff

Today, or this morning's post will be to the point: a few links to sites that I really like when it comes to web site & blog design. Or, what I do when I get bored with how things look.

Colors. Isn't it a pain in the *rse to try and figure out what the hexidecimal numbers are for a color? Or even what a color looks like? I have the answer in the aptly named HTML Color Names site. When you click on the Color Hex number, you'll see an entire page in that color. That's how I finally found the hexidecimal number for the new color scheme here. I was looking for the color to match the green on the logo. Little did I know it's called Dark Cyan. Who knew?

Banners. Another problem if you are not a photoshop wiz or ham handed when it comes to selecting layouts. Another aptly named site, The Free Online Image Editor is great at pulling together a banner, or whatever else you would like it do to. There are limits to it's features, but work within those limits and you can do quite a lot.

Search. Google search for blogs and websites annoys me. The layout annoys me. The ranking annoys me. So instead I moved the search functions to Lijit (as in ligitemate... a pun that I missed at first). If you haven't yet, check out the Search widget on the blog and the website. Cool stuff there. I particularly like the visitors feature so I can see what people around the world are doing when they should be working.

What you should and shouldn't be doing: Jakob Nielsen's Newsletter is a must see. Opinionated, true. Biased, true. Given that, I've been reading his stuff for years. Lots of good tips on what to do when designing a site and what not to do. In particular, Nielsen tells you why you should or shouldn't do it.

Roman Numerals: I learned this stuff in high school but forgot it all. So I go to the Roman Numerals Converter website to figure out just when that book was published.

Search Engines: As if you hadn't heard enough about Google, here is Search Engine Watch, the site for SEO (Search Engine Optimization). True, you have to pay to see deep content, but there is still stuff there to read for the shallow pocketed people like me. 

Finally, the most important, most life changing, most vital to your health website there is concerning copyright and the terrors unto death.

Till next, Gary

Scanning Tips Revisited

Recently I was asked: "how do you scan those catalogs? My scanner seems to produce only so-so images...) or something to that effect. This question pops up on a fairly regular basis, so an answer on the blog seems like a good idea.

The short answer is:

Scanning is one third hardware, one third software, one third post-scan processing (if needed).

Hardware
I'm partial to Epson Perfection scanners. Microtek also made a great line of entry level pro scanners, but they were costly (I have an i800). I say were, because Microtek just left the scanning hardware market. Some people swear by Canon, but I have found that for my purposes of scanning old paper, Epson does a better job. The Epson V500 is new and very nice machine. The cover is lightweight and has indents to hold it half way open... a very nice feature the Canon machines lack. The new imaging system is fast yet highly accurate.

A note on scanning speed. Faster is not always better. The average home scanner actually does this little trick of scanning two lines for one. Essentially, the scanner is grabbing two lines (as in Lines Per Inch or  LPI) and interpreting them as single lines. When you move up to a pro scanner, such as Microtek or the Epson graphics machines, the scan is slow because you are getting one line per line instead of two.

Trick: For books, instead of using the cover, place a piece of black cloth over the item.
Trick: Scanners don't scan to the very edge of the platen. Place a small spacer of cardboard along the top and right hand edge of the platen to use up the 'dead' spots.

Software
The software supplied by the company is OK if you are willing to play with the Levels adjustments to tweak the image. Typically though, the extent and varieties of tweaks will be limited. Why tweak? The better the initial scan, the better the final image. You can work on the image in post-scan but you can't create something from data that just ain't there. I'll talk about Levels and all those cool things in the next blog post.

Alternate software is better. Vuescan is moderately priced and will handle most any scanner on the market. The interface is a little funny and takes some getting used to. That said, there are both basic and advanced settings that can do some very powerful things. I've just never adjusted to the workflow of Vuescan. It has always seemed counter-intuitive to me. Silverscan from LaserSoft Imaging is my favorite and an industry standard. The downside is that Silverscan is keyed to the particular scanner model. Buy a new model, you have to buy a new copy of Silverscan. But... this is an extremely powerful hunk of software that allows you to do anything from basic scanning with built-in presets or customize to your hearts content.

Really, you ask? But why should I spend more money when my scanner has already shipped with it's own software package? Scanning output (or 'imaging' as the pundits like to say... makes them feel more important I guess) is only as good as the software. Produce a better image and you have something to work with. Really good scan software will allow you to perform Photoshop style enhancements on the Preview image before it is scanned. The general idea is to produce one image that contains all the data you will need for post-scan processing. Post-scan processing is simply what you do in Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Acrobat or the image/pdf creator of your choice.

Trick: Adjust Sharp and Contrast in the scanning software. Don't worry about Brightness. That is best handled in post-scan work. Unsharp Mask is only useful when scanning original color photographs that have tons of detail. Old photographs should never be hit with Unsharp Mask.
Trick: Descreen is useful if you are scanning old engravings, halftone images (those images made up of lots of little dots such as magazine and newspaper photographs) or any image containing lots of fine lines. You'll know you need to descreen if you see the evil moire patterns in your final image.

Image Type and Specs
When preparing for a PDF or an image to post online, I generally scan to TIFF at 300 DPI Grayscale for the average item. If there are complex engravings, halftones or similar graphics on the page, I use 400 dpi. 400 Dpi approximates the typical halftone grid, often reducing or eliminating the moire junk. If scanning for eventual OCR, I always use 400 DPI Grayscale or Color. If I want a Black & White (Bitonal) image, I'll remove the Color or Grayscale portion in post-scan imaging and adjust the Levels to clear any background clutter. Why not just scan in Black & White? Because I am talking about old stuff. Nice new material has the sharp contrast between black and white that may allow Bitonal (ok, Black & White) scanning. Maybe. Sometimes. But if you want a high quality image or PDF, go with Grayscale first. Color I reserve for those items in which the color actually represents some important or relevant information.

Yes, I know these are going be big file sizes. I adhere to the principal of more is better. I can always reduce the PDF size later on or alter the image DPI or physical dimensions in Photoshop Elements or Graphic Converter (good Mac software). Hard disk space is really cheap now, DVD blanks are cheap so don't skimp on the 'master' scanned image.

A final word on DPI and physical dimensions. DPI, or PPI (depending on what industry you are working in and what jargon you are using) has to do with how much information is squished into an inch of monitor screen real estate. The higher the DPI or PPI, the more detail will be stored in that little inch. So why is your 300 DPI/PPI image opening up to monster size when you view it on your computer monitor? Because that DPI/PPI is related to the resolution of your particular monitor and operating system. This has nothing to do with what you and I think of as the physical size of the original object. It's sort of like Terry Pratchett's Discworld. What you think you see is not what you are really seeing.

Trick: If your scanning software will allow it, set the DPI of your choice and then set the physical dimensions of the original item. The resulting image will be jam packed with image data and will display at the set physical dimensions you specified. At least on a Mac it will. On Windows it's anyones guess.

In the next post I'll discuss Post-Scan processing of old photographs and paper

Till next, Gary

Moonshine Scanning

Everybody has their little secrets. Mine is moonshine. Moonshine works for me. It allows me to focus, to get the job done, in fact, without moonshine, I'ld have to find something else to help out the whole scanning process.

You see, flatbed scanners don't image all the way to the very edge of the glass platen. There's always a little bit of space that the magic smoke and mirrors misses. You can try repositioning the item to be scanned by eye, but it is never quite right. That annoying little edge creeps in and messes up your work. A little fuzziness, a slightly grayed out line or a totally missing page edge interrupts the flow.

So what do you do? I turn to moonshine... a nifty little ruler, courtesy of our U.S. Gov't. Simply put, I place it along the edge of the item to be scanned. It allows a measured space, defeating the dreaded grayed edge. Pick the edge from which you wish to register the scan and go to it. I can't say for certain if the Feds still have these rulers. I got mine out at Brimfield from what I can only assume was an undercover agent, bent on smoking out the stills hidden in the back of antique dealers trailers.

Drink up and get scanning!
Till next
Gary